Sharif Gabir and the Dunning Kruger effect, ISIS and Islam Part-2

(English isn't my first language so I might make grammatical mistakes)

Duo to the factor that for some odd reason, blogger is messing up my posts so I decided to delay the full part response and make each part contain only 10 footnotes until I’m fully done with his video

so part 3 will come later so as other parts

I apologize in advance for the shortness of the article, but I have to do it each with few footnotes to prevent any errors in posting

Now we shall continue our critique of Sharif Gabir’s video, ISIS, and Islam

full disclaimer, I’m not claiming ISIS is not true Islam, what I say is that ISIS can use religions justifications for their acts, however, to claim that Muslims don’t offer religious justifications for their claims, therefore moderate Muslims aren’t real Muslims is a no true Scotsman fallacy, something both Sharif  Gabir and the masked arab are guilty of

yes, claiming that ISIS isn’t real Islam or that ISIS Muslims aren’t real Muslims is equally a no true Scotsman fallacy, but that doesn’t give you the ticket to claim moderate Muslims can’t justify their Islam with text, or that they are not real Muslims

keep this in mind when ever you read any of my material in regards to ISIS

without further ado let us proceed

@3:35 Sharif cities ones again the Clechie argument of Muhammad marriage to Aisha, I have dealt in details with this issue scientifically, and showed how it’s impossible scientifically and logically to consider Muhammad a pedophile, I shall link my article¹

@3:44 Sharif bring idiotically the argument of beheading brutality, this argument contains two parts

one is that beheading is brutal

two is that Khalid bin Alwalid beheaded malik bin nowhere

now let us address each one

are beheadings brutal?

Compared to drone strikes which the likes of Sharif have no problem criticizing, how can you think that drone strikes that cuts and mutilate bodies into thousands of pieces are less brutal than beheading? Anyone who thinks beheading is more brutal is a certified lunatic

Now what about Malik bin nowhere, what happened? And why was he beheaded? Did he do something wrong?

There have been many reports that Malik prevented prayer, and took the zakat (public charity) for himself and prevented it, let’s take a look at these reports and let us look later on did he actually cocked malik head as sharif claim?

Sharif Cited a number of sources for this story, including alwaqidi

he later cited Al-Isaba by Hafis ibn Hajar

Kanz Al-Umal by Mutaqi hindi

Bidaia Wa Al-Niahaia by Ibn Kathir

now I was trying to grab the original narration when I was looking at his screen-shot, I was able to find the narration source in which all above sources mention:

{حدثنا ابن حميد، قال: حدثنا سلمة، قال: حدثنا محمد بن إسحاق، عن طلحة بن عبد الله بن عبد الرحمن بن أبي بكر الصديق، أن أبا بكر كان من عهده إلى جيوشه: أن إذا غشيتم دارا من دور الناس فسمعتم فيها أذانا للصلاة، فأمسكوا عن أهلها حتى تسألوهم ما الذي نقموا! وإن لم تسمعوا أذانا، فشنوا الغارة، فاقتلوا، وحرقوا وكان ممن شهد لمالك بالإسلام أبو قتادة الحارث بن ربعي أخو بني سلمة، وقد كان عاهد آلله ألا يشهد مع خالد بن الوليد حربا أبدا بعدها، وكان يحدث أنهم لما غشوا القوم راعوهم تحت الليل، فأخذ القوم السلاح قال: فقلنا: إنا المسلمون، فقالوا: ونحن المسلمون، قلنا: فما بال السلاح معكم! قالوا لنا: فما بال السلاح معكم! قلنا: فإن كنتم كما تقولون فضعوأ السلاح، قال: فوضعوها، ثم صلينا وصلوا وكان خالد يعتذر في قتله أنه قال له وهو يراجعه: ما أخال صاحبكم إلا وقد كان يقول كذا وكذا قال: أو ما تعده لك صاحبا! ثم قدمه فضرب عنقه وأعناق أصحابه، فلما بلغ قتلهم عمر بن الخطاب، تكلم فيه عند أبي بكر فأكثر، وقال: عدو الله عدا على امرئ مسلم فقتله، ثم نزا على امرأته! وأقبل خالد بن الوليد قافلا حتى دخل المسجد وعليه قباء له عليه صدأ الحديد،معتجرا بعمامة له، قد غرز في عمامته أسهما، فلما أن دخل المسجد قام إليه عمر فانتزع الأسهم من رأسه فحطمها، ثم قال: ارثاء! قتلت امرأ مسلما، ثم نزوت على امرأته! والله لأرجمنك بأحجارك - ولا يكلمه خالد بن الوليد، ولا يظن إلا أن راي أبي بكر على مثل راي عمر فيه - حتى دخل على أبي بكر،فلما أن دخل عليه أخبره الخبر، واعتذر إليه فعذره أبو بكر، وتجاوز عنه ما كان في حربه تلك قال: فخرج خالد حين رضي عنه أبو بكر، وعمر جالس في المسجد، فقال: هلم إلى يا بن أم شملة! قال: فعرف عمر أن أبا بكر قد رضي عنه فلم يكلمه، ودخل بيته. وكان الذي قتل مالك بن نويرة عبد بن الأزور الأسدي وقال ابن الكلبي: الذي قتل مالك بن نويرة ضرار بن الأزور}²

Duo to the lengthy portion of the narration, I highlighted 4 issues within this narration

let’s start with the first one

Muhammad Bin Humaid Al-Razi

he is known to be a liar

{he was among those who make up twisted things

according to Abu Zar’a and Muhammad bin Muslim he is a liar}³

so right of the bat we can already reject the narration brought forth by Sharif, but let us see further down the list of other weak narrators in this list
next is Salma Bin Fathil

{he is a truthful man but make mistakes}⁴

best Huzaima bin Thabit Al-’aqfani

‘An’ana Muhammad bin Ishaq

{he is truthful but known to cite from fabricators and liars}⁵

the forth issue is that this is considered mursal as Talha bin Abdullah didn’t meet Abu Baker

{Talha Bin Abdullah bin Abdulrahman from his grandfather Abu baker Abu zar’a said he is mursal and this is apparent, no doubt}⁶

we can easily ignore this narration from the first weak narrator, but as you saw, if we continue down the path we see 3 more issues in relation to the hadith

@3:58 Sharif Cites a narration in regards to slavery in Islam, stating that this narration makes the claim that if a slave runs away from his master he is a kafir until he returns, however, what does the word kafir means here?

The hadith goes as follows

{It is narrated on the authority of Jarir that he heard (the Holy Prophet) saying, The slave who fled from his master committed an act of infidelity as long as he would not return to him}⁷

now, what does the word Kafir means here?

According to Imam Nawawi, there are four known meanings to this

{it leads to kufr, or it’s dishonor and disrespect to the generosity and the hospitality of the master, or it’s not allowed, but in my opinion, the most accurate one is that this is of the works of ignorants and jahilia and their ill manners}⁸

and according to Imam Manawi

{his words in “he committed kufir” or meaning the blessings of the master, meaning he disrespect it, here simply means that the slave has committed act of disrespect and dishonored to his master who treated him with kindness and generosity, and he will continue to be like this until he return because his act is similar to the acts of the kufars}⁹

so as we can see, this more likely mean that the slave who leaves his master becomes kafir in meaning unbeliever until he return to him, in broader meaning, this means he simply disrespected his master kindness and generosity that is simply all what it means, not that he is a disbeliever now, I would like for sharif to explain his reasons for this dishonest assessment

I simply have no idea why the likes of sharif and the masked arab when they cite a Sahih hadith they don’t provide explanation, or let alone when they cite secondary narration they don’t provide sanad or chain of narration

End of Part 2

______________________________

[1]  http://azblogtalk.blogspot.com/2016/02/why-masked-arab-is-masked-falsehood.html

[2]  Tarikh Tabari Vol.3 Page.279

[3]  Al-Majruhin Min Al-muhadithin by Imam Abi Hatim bin Haban Vol.2 Page.321

[4]  Taqrib Al-Tahthib by Imam bin Hajar Al-Asqalani page.188

[5]  Tabakat Al-Mudalisin Page.52

[6]  Jami’ Al-Tahsil, fi Ahkam Al-Marasil

[7]  https://sunnah.com/muslim/1/134

[8]  Sharih Sahih Muslim by Imam Nawawi 2/57-58

[9]  Faith Al-Qadir by Imam Manawi Vol.3 Page.142